I completely disagree. The concurrency presents a HUGE problem. When someone is divorced, that is a severing of that relationship and all of the rights and privileges associated with that relationship are terminated. For instance a spouse from a first marriage has NO rights to a child from a second marriage. A divorce divides the assests from a marriage and a former spouse has no rights to the assets acquired thereafter. Who gets paid survivor benefits in the event...

How exactly does this work? Marriage is an institution in this country upon which many things already discussed are based such as survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, etc. I don't disagree that in some of these it's not a huge hurdle to remove governmental involvement, however the government does base a number of things on marital status. For instance, how is it determined who to pay survivor benefits to? I assume that you would indicate...

Well... Is he referring to Benghazi as an "act of terror" or an "act of violence"? Because right after he says "no act of terror", he uses the phrase "no act of violence". You are outraged over the "apology tour" because if never actually said, "I apologize". He said numerous things in various speeches that could be take as an apology but he never actually said the word apology or apologize. Now, in this instance you are defending him by taking any reference to...

Well, I think Romney may be guilty of giving the left a bit too much credit for smarts in understanding his point.http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/331390/fact-checking-romneys-comment-syria-irans-route-sea-greg-pollowitz

Give me a break. Do you actually know what a lie is?Romney explained exactly what he meant by the apology tour. Obama was nice enough to give him the reason to spell this out specifically so that people like you couldn't, or shouldn't at least call it a lie. He cited exact verbiage and instances and why he viewed that as an apology. At this point it would be for the viewers to decide if that qualified as an apology, but it was factually accurate and therefore not a lie.He...

I honestly don't see how that is substantively different from polygamy. I can't think of, off the top of my head, any other instance where a singular of something is legal whereas a plurality of that same thing is illegal. My point is that if you are going to argue from the idea of "fairness" that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I don't see how you can not argue affirmatively for polygamy. The point is that those arguing FOR same-sex marriage are seeking...

So you are saying that we are warm now and have been warm or warming for a while, right? Does that mean that we are on the cusp of another cooling period or possibly even a mini ice age? I'd love to see the research/evidence that supports your claim. I'm not arguing here, just curious.

I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point. They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose. Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry. This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are...